Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Joke Known As 3D TV

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the so-funny-it-gives-you-a-migraine dept.

Displays 594

harrymcc writes "I'm at IFA in Berlin — Europe's equivalent of the Consumer Electronics Show — and the massive halls are dominated by 3D TVs made by everyone from Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic to companies you've never heard of. The manufacturers seem pretty excited, but 3D has so many downsides — most of all the lousy image quality and unimpressive dimensionality effect — that I can't imagine consumers are going to go for this. 'As a medium, 3D remains remarkably self-trivializing. Virtually nobody who works with it can resist thrusting stuff at the camera, just to make clear to viewers that they’re experiencing the miracle of the third dimension. When Lang Lang banged away at his piano during Sony’s event, a cameraman zoomed in and out on the musical instrument for no apparent reason, and one of the company’s representatives kept robotically shoving his hands forward. Hey, it’s 3D — watch this!'"

cancel ×

594 comments

thrusting (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478274)

the first post at the camera

Re:thrusting (4, Insightful)

MDMurphy (208495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478404)

Thrusting is right. ( Though I usually refer to 3-D as "throwing shit at your face")

You can spot a commercial for almost every 3-D movie right away, even watching in 2D with no foreknowledge. You'll see spears, birds, balls anything that moves rapidly moving towards you, stopping just short of hitting the screen.

As with B&W movies, or even silent films, that survive and entertain today, it's about the content, not the technology. New features can possibly enhance the experience, but a crap show is a crap show, regardless if it's in HD, surround sound and 3-D.

Re:thrusting (3, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478466)

Regardless of bells and whistles technique can still be refined.

Re:thrusting (4, Insightful)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478526)

We're in the "blue LED phase" of 3D right now, where everyone is using it just because it's new. Once the novelty wears off it will start to be used more sensibly. Although I'd argue that we still haven't reached that point with blue LEDs either :)

Re:thrusting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478584)

3D has been around since at least the 70s or 80s IIRC. If not earlier. It's just a bit more cost effective to produce. Although not much. They've had plenty of time to try and learn to use it sensibly. The trouble is that 3D adds little to no value at all to the movie to begin with (aside from the fact that it's actually bad for your brains (esp. children's brains) when it comes to processing depth in the real world.

They've been putting 3D in crappy B movies since the 80s. They just picked the 'trend' back up like all trends do.

Re:thrusting (3, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478626)

We're in the "blue LED phase" of 3D right now, where everyone is using it just because it's new. Once the novelty wears off it will start to be used more sensibly. Although I'd argue that we still haven't reached that point with blue LEDs either :)

Yeah. A couple of years ago at work we installed a new HP inkjet printer in our department. It went into its internal diagnostic/setup rouitne, and a bright blue LED started going back and forth like a demented Cylon. We all stared at it in awe, until it finally stopped. Then one of the guys reached out and pressed the self-test button again.

However, I'd argue that 3D movies have already gotten past the blue LED phase. Certainly Cameron's Avatar was a highly engrossing (both to the viewer and the bottom line) film even without the 3D, and without throwing somebody's yo-yo in your face (like "Journey to the Center of the Earth", which was nothing but a vehicle to show off 3D effects and little else.) Of course, few filmmakers are of Cameron's caliber, and many just depend upon special effects to try and carry the day (yeah, Mr. Lucas, I'm lookin' at you.)

Oblig SCTV ref. (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478682)

Dr Tongue's "3D House Of Stewardesses!" SCARY!

Re:Oblig SCTV ref. (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478738)

Those 3D skits were hilarious, along with Smell-O-Rama...

Bad quality (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478278)

I was in Fry's Electronics a few weeks ago, and they had a 3D TV demo set up. I tried it, and was blown away by how bad the quality was. It flickered, gave me a headache, and didn't have much of a 3D effect at all. I assumed that they guys at Fry's didn't know what they were doing and had set it up wrong, but from this article it sounds like they might have.

Re:Bad quality (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478726)

I assumed that they guys at Fry's didn't know what they were doing and had set it up wrong, but from this article it sounds like they might have.

... set it up wrong?

Too Scared To Not Try (2, Interesting)

anguirus.x (1463871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478282)

Hahah. They're too scared to *not* put out a crappy product.

Re:Too Scared To Not Try (5, Insightful)

anguirus.x (1463871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478300)

Even if they can tell, obviously, that these 1st-gen 3DTVs are a bust, they can't afford to risk missing out on carving out market share right now. Now is the time to make their brand synonymous with 3D TV. The trick will be avoiding being the brand associated with the failings of the first generation.

Re:Too Scared To Not Try (2, Insightful)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478390)

I agree. I think we are looking at a Laser Disk or BetaMax situation here. Either it's going to establish an under-served dedicated niche market that will be viewed in the future as cutting edge pioneering technology, or it's going to establish an under-served dedicated niche market that is going become a laughing stock despite being cutting edge pioneering technology. Either way, this generation of 3D is never going to go mainstream.

Re:Too Scared To Not Try (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478422)

The trick will be avoiding being the brand associated with the failings of the first generation.

So there's going to be a generation of 3DTV which doesn't suck?

Re:Too Scared To Not Try (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478560)

It will coincide with the year of the Linux desktop.

Re:Too Scared To Not Try (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478660)

I can't wait to play Duke Nukem Forever on my Linux desktop in 3D.

Re:Too Scared To Not Try (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478580)

So there's going to be a generation of 3DTV which doesn't suck?

Most likely, yes. However, it's not guaranteed for this century.

Re:Too Scared To Not Try (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478448)

But how many folks are actually gonna buy this crap, assuming the industry doesn't collude and just stop making non 3D TVs? Hell I still have plenty of customers on regular SD sets because to their glasses wearing peepers that is plenty "good enough" and those I know that have gone HD seem to be just happy as clams with the upscaled SD they get from their cable and DVD players.

With the economy starting to smell like a corpse in the sun I just don't see many folks jumping on the 3D bandwagon. I mean sure you'll get a few early adopters, the same type that have to have triple SLI just to show they have the biggest ePeen, but that isn't enough to support an entire industry of the size we are talking. Finally it seems like ever since I was a kid in the 70s we've gone through this "Wow, 3D!" phase every 5 years or so, yet they haven't fixed the major problems...having to wear stupid glasses, the fact that many of us just get a nice skull thumper from their whizzbang tech, and in this newest case you can add expensive electronic glasses that mean nobody will be able to just show up and watch some tube with you without carrying their own glasses around.

In short I think the only way they are gonna be able to really push this turkey onto the masses is by not making regular sets anymore, and I think if they try that some Chinese company will be happy to take the regular market. Just look at how they pushed B-Ray and yet in 9 out of 10 households I walk into it is DVDs being played, and the 10th is usually calling me to set up a WD TV so they can just skip discs altogether. I have a feeling except for theaters this tech is gonna be DOA.

PC compatibility is an advantage of HDTV (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478724)

Hell I still have plenty of customers on regular SD sets because to their glasses wearing peepers that is plenty "good enough"

You need an HDTV to surf the web or play PC games on your TV. Few PCs have SDTV output out of the box (instead needing a gaming video card or a $40 Sewell scan converter), and even on those that do, text easily gets too blurry to read. Most HDTVs have VGA and HDMI inputs for use with PCs' VGA and DVI-D outputs.

and the 10th is usually calling me to set up a WD TV so they can just skip discs altogether.

Apple TV has only an HDMI output, and the "regular SD sets" you speak of don't have an HDMI or DVI-D input. Does this WD TV box have composite output, or does it need an HDTV?

SCTV is on the air! (3, Interesting)

Latent Heat (558884) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478284)

Was that a recurrent, annoying joke of the late John Candy on the SCTV comedy show, where he was constantly thrusting his hands towards the camera to highlight the 3D effect? The parent post is reality imitating art.

Re:SCTV is on the air! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478312)

Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses.

Re:SCTV is on the air! (1)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478552)

With Woody Tobias, Jr.

Re:SCTV is on the air! (3, Informative)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478596)

The classic "Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses" on Count Floyd's Nightmare theater... (or something like that.) :)

What a GREAT skit. I still love it...

Re:SCTV is on the air! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478718)

Man, I didn't realize there were so many of us old farts on Slashdot! I remember staying up late every Saturday while I was in college - I couldn't have cared less about Saturday Night Live, but SCTV was on afterward! Johnny LaRue, Mrs. Falbo's Tiny Town, Bob and Doug, and Count Floyd presenting Dr. Tongue's latest 3D "masterpiece".

Oh and of course Gil Fisher's "Fishin' Musician" scored some pretty big names!

FWIW I thought the PBS "best of SCTV" was pretty lame. It's true some of the jokes didn't age gracefully; but more importantly the skits don't particularly stand well on their own without the background filler regarding all the goings-on at the "station". It came across as one big in joke that probably most of the audience didn't get...

i for one (0, Troll)

ifeelswine (1546221) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478290)

welcome the trolls that will send us 3-d shock websites. imagine typical macintosh user with smellovision?

Re:i for one (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478694)

welcome the trolls that will send us 3-d shock websites. imagine typical macintosh user with smellovision?

I'm guessing the goatse.3d website will be a pit of unpleasantness.

Thrusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478296)

"Virtually nobody who works with it can resist thrusting stuff at the camera"

The porn industry caught on fast.

Everyone bought their HD TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478310)

So, now they need something else to sell. After 3D will be Ultra HD (the prices would be too high now), followed by Ultra HD 3D, and then something else.

Re:Everyone bought their HD TV (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478426)

I think you can already get QuadHD/4k camcorders & stuff in Japan.

It wont matter by then. By the 4th or 5th generation of 3DTV we'll all be locked-in to getting our media
fed to us PayPerView style from the likes of Apple & Google. They'll get to charge you to watch it twice
too as the extra bandwidth will cost more.

There will be no point in increasing resolution or features because its not like you'll have any
alternative anyway. They'll also have phased out analog connections by then and all media data
will require an up-to-date encryption license/key or they'll make it blocky and unwatchable.
They'll simply stop producing DVD & BluRay stand alone players and because of Trusted Computing
you wont be able to use a PC based drive to watch anything.

Re:Everyone bought their HD TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478434)

Super Ultra HD 3D Turbo - now with 3Dnow! technology and blast processing

Consumer upgrade #4231844 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478340)

3D TV reminds me of BluRay or HDTV. They're all marketed as the next big thing but all they do is make
it a bit prettier. What about spending more money on making it a better story? Making it prettier does
not make it better, it makes it prettier. Its only a distraction from the plot not an enhancement
and its only the stupid who fall for it but then they are just as likely to be impressed by a piece of
shiny foil.

Its worse than PhysX for games. At least that could be used to enhance gameplay but all they seem to do is try to
make things look a bit prettier.

Re:Consumer upgrade #4231844 (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478416)

To an extent, but the poor quality of things like say falling rain and breaking glass has a tendency to stretch the ability of the player to suspend his disbelief. Likewise, high quality effects tend to lend themselves to more cooperation on the part of the viewer. I remember reading something recently that we tend to notice poor video quality more when we're not fully engaged in the movie.

That being said, the thing is that we've always had poor quality movies and games, it's a question of what's available to the artisans of the industry, the Hitchcocks, Carmacks and Romeros both George and John of the world.

3D won't take off anytime soon as it's still primitive, not just in terms of technology, but in terms of how it's used. It's still mostly used for cheap shocks and often times isn't even done well. As directors and game programmers get better at it, there'll be more to it. But right now there isn't really that much difference between say Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY edition in 3D versus the the 3D turned off, they just did way too good a job with the regular one in terms of giving it a 3D feel while being quite subtle with the 3D.

Harry, you're a MORON (0, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478342)

You're bitching about the douchebaggery of program producers, not the TV gizmo.

Get a brain.

Another short-lived gimmick (1)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478344)

This latest crop of 2D-to-3D technology is best used in 5-minute amusement park rides, where all the other 3D tech belongs. At best, it provides a few cool moments during the action scenes. At worst, you have a headache after too many blurry shapes try to trick your brain into seeing depth that isn't there and have to stop watching.

Re:Another short-lived gimmick (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478642)

This latest crop of 2D-to-3D technology is best used in 5-minute amusement park rides, where all the other 3D tech belongs. At best, it provides a few cool moments during the action scenes. At worst, you have a headache after too many blurry shapes try to trick your brain into seeing depth that isn't there and have to stop watching.

Depends. If the actual content holds your interest (and I admit, about the only example of that which I can think of is Avatar) you don't even notice. Contrast that to Alice in Wonderland or Journey to the Center of the Earth. I damn near walked out of the theater while watching the latter two, because the 3D effect made me ill. So did Avatar, to a degree, but I enjoyed the movie so much I didn't care.

Early days of stereo audio.... (5, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478346)

The early days of stereo audio are known as the ping pong days because of the vocals and instruments bouncing back and forth between the two channels. If you listen to, for example, some of the early Beatles recordings, you'll hear the ping-pong effect.

.
When you add another dimension to a playback medium, the first temptation is to exploit that new dimension to the point of exaggeration. That is where 3-D TV is now.

Give the creative types a few years and 3D TV will look very differently. Heck, it may even work without those awful glasses........

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (3, Insightful)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478376)

You beat me to the punch...The technology is still under development, like when the first flat screen TVs came out....
Everybody needs to stop whining right now and give it time. No-one is forcing you to buy it anyways, f'ing hell...

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478476)

Would the technology advance without whiners?

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478522)

No-one is forcing you to buy it anyways

It's true, if you get headaches from 3d, you will never be forced to get a 3d TV, since consumers are never forced into upgrading their equipment ever.

Now if you excuse me, I have to go buy "Inception" on VHS...

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (5, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478644)

No-one is forcing you to buy it anyways

It's true, if you get headaches from 3d, you will never be forced to get a 3d TV, since consumers are never forced into upgrading their equipment ever.

Now if you excuse me, I have to go buy "Inception" on VHS...

VHS died because DVD was obviously better. The quality wasn't as good as DVD, there weren't as many features as DVDs and you had to rewind your movies (hey, it was annoying).

I don't see 2D television going away any time soon as 3D isn't exactly an obvious improvement. It will probably become a niche, like vinyl in the audio world.

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478656)

No-one is forcing you to buy it anyways

It's true, if you get headaches from 3d, you will never be forced to get a 3d TV, since consumers are never forced into upgrading their equipment ever.

Now if you excuse me, I have to go buy "Inception" on VHS...

Well, as long as that 3D television set still plays 2D content with the quality to which we're currently accustomed, I don't really care.

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478460)

The early days of stereo audio are known as the ping pong days because of the vocals and instruments bouncing back and forth between the two channels.

Today, we are way more sophisticated about stuff. We call it "panning" now.

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (2, Informative)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478512)

And let's not forget about great ideas like "the music plays on both channels but the vocals only play on the left one".

I just hope that trideo* matures fast.


* Hey, Shadowrun described this stuff ages ago so why not stick to their nomenclature? It's handier than "3D TV".

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478534)

Just like when HD was new. Everything was super sharp to a point where it was killing off the ACTUAL advantages of HD to emphasize crisp edges.

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478544)

Give the creative types a few years and 3D TV will look very differently. Heck, it may even work without those awful glasses........

Great. Then maybe in a few years, then it'll be something to comment about. Right now, the technology as it stands, comes across as an over-played gimmick trying to fast-talk it's way in to our living rooms while keeping a foot in the door. Meanwhile, some execs in Hollywood seem to have just woken up from a long nap they started in the 50's, grabbed the guys from the 80s for "new" ideas, and are re-shooting their entire cinemalogue... but this time, in 3D! It'll be us dirty fee-loading Internet copyright theives that will be the ones responsible for any of those films failing at the box office.

I really do like technology and progress. But not all technology is progress. Even when the marketing says it is.

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (1)

mike260 (224212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478546)

Another analogy would be popup books, although that one worked out a bit differently.

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (5, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478554)

Just like how Silver slippers became Ruby Slippers and a Horse of a Different Color was added to highlight Technocolor in Wizard of Oz.

Re:Early days of stereo audio.... (1)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478618)

The early days of stereo audio are known as the ping pong days because of the vocals and instruments bouncing back and forth between the two channels. If you listen to, for example, some of the early Beatles recordings, you'll hear the ping-pong effect.

.When you add another dimension to a playback medium, the first temptation is to exploit that new dimension to the point of exaggeration. That is where 3-D TV is now.

3-D TV is at the point were 3-D movies were when they were introduced, when things would be thrown out 'into' the audience, specifically for the "SEE! THIS IS 3-D!!!" effect. I had hoped that, with the years of schlock "3D for 3D's sake" that the movies went through, that 3D television would be able to skip past the same "the effect is more important than what it brings to the content" dead-end, but it appears that we'll have to wait for the manufacturers'' 'gosh-wow' period to die back.

The brain doesn't like what doesn't make sense (5, Informative)

boondaburrah (1748490) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478348)

If 3D content creators would stop making window violations and (my favourite) changing the convergence point of the screen without zooming (and vice versa) the idea that 3d is going to give headaches wouldn't have as much fact to go on. I'm sure some people get headaches anyway, but the majority of the people get them because of this stupid filmography. Also, stop changing the 3d depth every shot. I'm looking at you, Avatar.

If you give the brain realistic input that could actually happen, people would be more comfortable with it and it would be more likely to sell.

Also, the ghosting on some glasses is terrible. I could even see it in RealD, but it wasn't nearly as bad as some systems I've used (especially anaglyphs).

I hope it gets good before everyone becomes disinterested, because I'm actually excited for 3d to become kindof standard.

3D TV? (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478362)

All those TVs look pretty flat to me.

Re:3D TV? (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478396)

I think you're looking for one of these. [wikimedia.org]

These definitely don't look flat, I assure you. :P

Re:3D TV? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478430)

I suspect that what we'll end up with in the relative near future is using that cloaking technology stuff to make what is basically equivalent to a small stage in a box, where there's layers of basically pixels that go transparent at various points. It's a ways off, but apart from the space, assuming they can do it, I'm sure it'll be superior to the other approaches ultimately.

Re:3D TV? (1)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478630)

It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.

lowering costs of HD (2, Insightful)

codegen (103601) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478372)

With the prices dropping on HD TV's, they need to find something with a high markup that the chumps^H^H^H^H^H^H videophiles will buy. There are only so many $500 ethernet cables you can sell.

Re:lowering costs of HD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478506)

The quality of video reproduction isn't anywhere close to that of audio reproduction. I don't think I've ever seen a review of an overpriced digital cable from a videophile perspective, since video reproduction hasn't reached the level where videophiles would start to care about ephemeral qualities. Instead they still worry about things like black level, brightness, colour fidelity, and motion resolution.

Re:lowering costs of HD (1)

SageMusings (463344) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478664)

To get the very best 3-D picture it is essential to use only gold-plated Monster cable. I'll bet you're trusting your digital signal to generic conductors. The 500% premium makes all the difference, according to Monster labs.

Trust me. I'm an expert.

Re:lowering costs of HD (1)

whoop (194) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478600)

The trouble is, now you'll need everything new to go with your 3DTV. You'll want top notch 3D HDMI cables first, otherwise the third dimension might not reach your eyes fast enough. Then there's the 3D remote, 3D popcorn, 3D glasses... oh, waitaminute

1st gen only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478380)

I'm looking forward to the dual mini display port implants in my skull next year.

Poorly aimed vitriol (4, Insightful)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478382)

3DTV itself, or rather stereoscopic display technology, is perfectly fine. The problem lies in pants-on-head-retard directors who wouldn't know convergence depth interocular distance from their own anus. Creating stereoscopic video that doesn't cause headaches is HARD. You can;t justtape two cameras together and carry on as usual, and you sure as hell can't expect a 2D movie retrofitted to 3D to look even half decent.
Imagine if colour TV had started of with everything in bright block primary colours only.

Re:Poorly aimed vitriol (3, Funny)

doconnor (134648) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478470)

Imagine if colour TV had started of with everything in bright block primary colours only.

Wasn't that why Star Trek the original series had everything in bright block primary colours only?

Re:Poorly aimed vitriol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478708)

You can;t justtape two cameras together and carry on as usual

Actually yes, taping 2 cameras at the average human interocular distance is exactly what you want.

Re:Poorly aimed vitriol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478736)

I recently watched Avatar in 3d and I popped a blood vessel in my eye. Too much strain.

Not to mention, they can ruin your eyes. (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478386)

According to this Slashdot post [slashdot.org] , 3D can harm child and maybe adult vision.

Re:Not to mention, they can ruin your eyes. (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478666)

That was marked "Flamebait"??? It's a frigging Slashdot article. Hah. Someone who doesn't like me must have had mod points. It happens.

Fundamental problem: Close images far to one side (5, Interesting)

iliketrash (624051) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478392)

One of the fundamental problems with 3D movies and TV is this: Close-to-the-viewer images that appear far to one side of the screen. The problem? You go blind in one eye. To create the appropriate binocular disparity, the "other" image would need to appear in a direction for which there is no screen, thus, no image is presented to one eye. The result is jarring and upsetting.

James Cameron seems to have figured this out in Avatar and avoided doing it for the most part.

How else to avoid the problem? Use a really big screen (in terms of angle subtended at the viewer's position) such as Imax. What does this portend for 3D TV? Nothing good, since TVs almost universally, even with "large" screens, do not subtend an adequate angle.

Remember the 1960's? (5, Insightful)

linzeal (197905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478398)

When color TVs became affordable for the consumer market and television programs started broadcasting in color the amount of garish costumes and set designs and other "look ma, its in color" gaucherie was lampooned mercilessly. The technology was refined and eventually turned out alright, even though it went through a stage at the advent of color when it verged on the psychedelic.

Discounting 3D at this stage of the technology is a patently absurd prognostication given the history of the TV.

Re:Remember the 1960's? (5, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478556)

The garish costumes actually had a purpose in black and white film, as they offered better contrast to the TV or cinema viewer. Obviously, you can't change a significant wardrobe collection overnight when colour becomes available.

Give it a rest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478406)

Look, we realize that, for the first time since any of us were alive, the tech press and the traditional (by which I mean retarded) press have finally found something to agree on: 3D (or to call it properly, stereoscopic) TV is a gimmick made of fail.

But we here on /. realized that 6 months or a year ago, when the first of the current wave of 3D TV sets started being demoed, promoted, and scorned as a gimmick in the tech press. The rest of the world realized it a few months later, when they started showing up and being scorned as gimmicks in the general press. You could always back off the pace of news articles on it until there's something, y'know... new to report.

Everyone who already shared your opinion (probably half of people, if you'd believe it) and all those who will be converted are on your side already, and getting bored. Those of who think "yeah, but it's a cool gimmick, can't wait for the price to come down" or "yeah, by itself it's a gimmick, but it becomes part of a great 3D visualization suite when I add my homebrew webcam headtracker..." just get madder every time you come back on telling them "You're wrong -- here's what you should think". And people who just don't give a fuck about 3D TV are tuning you out completely.

Especially on /., can't we stick to actual news, and maybe some opinion pieces on topics that don't resemble pulverised equine corpses?

More anti-3D trolling (1, Insightful)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478410)

Absolutely amazing. The amount of effort that people are putting out in order to bash a completely optional technology is staggering. No one is being forced to watch anything in 3D; no one is being forced to purchase 3D technology. Yet, so many people do anything they can to degrade a technology that they're not required to use with phrases like "goofy glasses" and "gimmick". Now "joke" can be added to that list. Might as well start calling the upsizing of fast-food value meals a "joke" and a "gimmick" considering that they're available, they're more expensive, and you're under no obligation to purchase those - just like 3D TV. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the efforts of those who looks to denigrate this technology, which in its current form is clearly in its infancy, amount to nothing more than trolling.

If you don't want it, then DON'T BUY IT! Why is this so difficult for these anti-3D trolls to undertstand?

Re:More anti-3D trolling (5, Insightful)

mike260 (224212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478496)

If Sony can pour millions into telling everyone that 3D is the bee's knees then I can take 2 minutes to voice my opinion that no, it ain't.

Re:More anti-3D trolling (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478578)

Because if current 3D technology didn't get bashed about like the piece of excrement that it is, it would become standard technology. Companies will sell the masses polished turds all day, telling them it's the latest and greatest, and unless people challenge their bullshit, they'll phase out the old tech and you will have to buy the new tech because there's nothing else to buy. Even if you just use the 2D portion, that's that much more you have to spend on a TV and that much more you have to spend on 3D only movies that will look asstastic in 2D. 3D will be great when it's ready, but lots of people seem to agree it's not and I for one don't think that it will be for another decade.

Also, it takes a lot of people screaming DO NOT WANT to get manufacturer's attentions.

Re:More anti-3D trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478582)

I think what the guy wanted was a 2D Consumer Electronics Show. Those might be hard to find now.

Re:More anti-3D trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478592)

"The amount of effort that people are putting out in order to bash a completely optional technology is staggering."

Sometimes, products go away because certain market segments grow beyond a critical point and reduce other markets to the point they are not seen as viable any more. Some of us consider those replacement products inferior. Consider how difficult it is to get the following for this reason:

* A reliable mid-range non-AWD station wagon.
* Any manual transmission car.
* An flat panel with a glossy finish.
* A simple cell phone.
* A new house less than 1500 sq feet.

Re:More anti-3D trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478648)

I think you've just come up with a great new marketing tool for the 3D TV industry:
3D: If you don't want it, then DON'T BUY IT!

Re:More anti-3D trolling (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478714)

I'm not buying it. It also doesn't take much effort, and can be amusing, to make fun of it at the same time.

Re:More anti-3D trolling (2, Insightful)

fredmosby (545378) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478722)

The article is mostly complaining that modern 3D TV's require special glasses to watch, which is a completely valid criticism. I'm not sure why you think no one should ever criticize 'optional' technologies. No one's forcing you to buy a Hummer H2 but they still suck.

3D can be done right-- (1, Interesting)

moneymatt (1817930) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478424)

Since 3D is so new, many people are choosing to criticism the entire medium via poorly generated content.
There are soooo many ways to mess up the 3D experience its not even funny.. Nobody's been properly trained in the do's and don't yet.. and so much is being rushed to market.

but when done right it's truly a compelling experience.

It's not fair to completely slam the genre of theater after seeing a few badly written plays.

Some 3D *wins*

* taking 3d photos/video with a fujifilm w3 camera.
* street fighter IV via Nvidia's 3d-Vision
* Avatar (They always maintain a proper depth of field with proper levels of focus)
* Sonic Sega Racing / TrackMania
* PORN (adult4d.com) -or shooting your own homemade with the above fujifilm

But yeah.. everything else sucks and hurts your head.

hurts it BAD. :/

one last thing, 3d projectors are always better than TVs.. *no ghosting!

Acer 5360 only 600 bux.

why it misses (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478428)

I see TV, outside of niche market like the obsessive sport fan, TVs serve two purposes. One is to be large central, almost alter like presence in the central room. If one is judged on size, and not performance, anything that reducing the diagonal inches/dollar is certainly not going to sell. The other purpose is increasing to replace the radio as background noise.

Yes there are crowds other than than sports fanatics that are actually to spend time glued to the tv for hours on end wearing these glasses. But I think the time when this is status quo, at least in the US, is long past.

Many would say that the going to movies is in decline because TV is catching up to major budget movie quality and because the experience is not what it used to be. I would say the reason for this is that people are less willing to sit idly for an hour or so and passively consume entertainment. The 3D tv is part of that passive consumption, and if we won't do it theaters, why would we do it at home, where are not prohibited for texting on our phones or loading up a video game on our portable player, simply because so relic for the 20th century thinks it is rude.

Glasses = death of 3D TV (4, Interesting)

Yeechang Lee (3429) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478444)

People accept glasses for watching 3D movies in theaters because they are there for the experience of watching a film on a giant screen with other people while eating popcorn and drinking soda. The same goes for other specific, controlled environments, like 3D CAM in an office; people accept it as part of the experience (or job in this case).

3D in the home will never succeed until and unless glasses are not needed. It doesn't matter whether the glasses are disposable or expensive, or if today's multiple competing standards congeal into one. No one will accept needing to constantly put on and take off 3D glasses to watch TV. Period.

After seeing Avatar in 2D, you know. (3, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478452)

I sat a few of my friends down to watch some scenes from Avatar in 2D, and one of their jaws dropped at how much worse the CG looks. 3D corrupts the live actors just enough to make the CG look of similar quality -- when it's in 2D, that effect goes away. I didn't do this to rag on Avatar's CG, but to show them how 3D destroys image quality even on something that is filmed specially for it.

I'm not looking forward to the day when the first 3D-only movie comes out.

3DTV here to stay (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478456)

I love 3 Dimensional TV done well. We have two eyes and see in 3D in the real world ... without having things shoved in our faces. Calm down content producers ... we get the point. 3DTV is here to stay - so start doing it right ...
Film like its a window into the world your watching - not like its a threshold for all sorts of stuff to poke out of.

Re:3DTV here to stay (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478688)

Our retinas are actually 2 dimensional and receive only two dimensional inputs. The only reason we 'see' in '3D' in the first place, is because our brain can infer depth from shadows, lighting, and other effects. Try covering one of your eyes. Your perception of the exact placement of things changes a bit, but you lose only a small amount of your depth perception, depending on each eye.

You don't go "OMFG, EVERYTHING WENT FLAT!".

You see in 2D and your brain translates that into something approximating 3D to begin with.

I'll get it when (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478462)

I'll get 3D TV when it involves a holography platform. Until then... probably not.

Problem Solved (4, Insightful)

mikeroySoft (1659329) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478480)

Just don't buy a 3D TV. The manufacturers will get the hint.

The joke known as color TV (2, Insightful)

gfody (514448) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478498)

I'm at the Premium Buyer's Exhibition in New York — the 1950's equivalent of the Consumer Electronics Show — and the massive halls are dominated by color TVs made by everyone from RCA to GE and Honeywell to companies you've never heard of. The manufacturers seem pretty excited, but color has so many downsides — most of all the lousy image quality and unimpressive color effect — that I can't imagine consumers are going to go for this. 'As a medium, color remains remarkably self-trivializing. Virtually nobody who works with it can resist flaunting garish stuff at the camera, just to make clear to viewers that they’re experiencing the miracle of color. When Elvis banged away at his piano during RCA’s event, a cameraman zoomed in and out on his ridiculous shoes for no apparent reason, and one of the company’s representatives kept robotically flicking his tie forward. Hey, it’s color — watch this!

Re:The joke known as color TV (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478542)

Color TV had an obvious and significant benefit and didn't require you to wear silly glasses all the time. 3D is a gimmick that only works well in a limited amount of footage that I've seen, and does require you to wear silly glasses all the time.

Until you can make 3D TVs which don't require glasses and do allow you to show objects which go outside the screen, it will always be a gimmick.

Re:The joke known as color TV (1)

xlsior (524145) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478628)

Until you can make 3D TVs which don't require glasses and do allow you to show objects which go outside the screen, it will always be a gimmick.

Several manufacturers are currently working on exactly that:
http://topnewsbuzz.com/3d-tv-without-glasses-currently-being-developed-by-sony-and-toshiba/9493 [topnewsbuzz.com]

Although I'd think that 3D-without-glasses could only work with a very shallow viewing angle, and be near impossible to implement so everyone in the room would be able to see the 3D effect properly.

Really, 3D TV is one of those areas where it does NOT pay to be an early adopter. If nothing else, the technology needs a little longer to mature to a format that actually works without the hassle that most of the current models entail.

Re:The joke known as color TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478696)

Really, 3D TV is one of those areas where it does NOT pay to be an early adopter.

Name one time, ever, that it has paid to be an early adopter of electronic tech.

Re:The joke known as color TV (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478684)

Until you can make 3D TVs which don't require glasses and do allow you to show objects which go outside the screen, it will always be a gimmick.

I disagree. My friend, you completely misunderestimate the buying public's capacity to accept pretty much anything so long as it costs more than the previous generation, and is shinier.

Informative! (2, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478536)

Let's hear lots of comments by people who haven't seen 3D TV. And then let's have poorly-woorded descriptions of a visual medium than can only really be appreciated by experiencing it.

This is the Internet at it's most Internet-like.

"Clearly, 3D TV sucks because it's expensive and I haven't purchased one yet. If I decide to buy one, it is because it has improved and no longer sucks."

New technologys always fail (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478538)

New technologies are -always- annoying to show that they can do it. Stereo audio is one main point. Listen to recordings from when stereo was just coming out and you will hear sound shift from left to right over and over again just so they can say they did it. Look at some of the programs when color TV first came out, they used hideous color schemes to show that you could have color. Look at the the early Nintendo DS games which were all "draw something with the stylus" games before they started to get better. Etc.

Early "new" technologies show the worst at the beginning (anyone else remember the age of animated .gif images -everywhere- on the web in the 90s?). 3-D is the same way, it will be annoying at first but when the technology improves and directors make things work, things get a lot better.

Banged Out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478604)

"When Lang Lang banged away at the piano"? I was following along with your little hate piece with interest until this statement...

3D is the future...but it's not here yet. (4, Interesting)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478610)

Accommodative input is the future. Period. We will eventually have technology which allows us to adapt content to the human receiver. This is not in dispute. Presentation and interaction methods which use these techniques well will dominate over those that don't. You can already see examples of this. The experience of watching a movie on a large theater screen is vastly different from watching it on a cheap 19" TV. Cruddy audio equipment doesn't have the same impact as a live performance. A real book is much easier to become absorbed in than the same content on most e-readers. Video games with poor camera behavior and non-intuitive controls aren't as fun to play. Psychologists and technologists have studied the hell out of it - immersion, emotional design, adaptive interfaces...they make up new names for different aspects of the problem almost every week. But for the most part, this is the future. There is a lot of promise, but for the most part we have to settle for emulating "real" versus contrived input and interaction to some functional level of fidelity which we can tolerate in order to pick up additional functionality (often portability) which the technological approach enables. Other cases do work better, but only if you're talking about expensive research prototypes which address a single aspect of a broader frontier.

The problem is that this leads to the mistaken assumption that our current implementations are accurate representations of their eventual successors. In most cases, they're not. 3D is probably one of the biggest culprits here. It's too easy to go "hey look, 3D displays - it's just like looking at real objects!"...but that's not really it. We've managed to come up with a number of technologies which give decent approximations of several depth cues beyond those available in a static 2D image (e.g. shadows, object occlusion, perspective methods). This is wonderful. But it's important to keep one point in mind, a point which is constantly overlooked.

All current 3D display technology falls well short of producing fully "believable" input.

Yeah. And that's setting aside the whole "movie producers keep producing trashy fake 3D pictures to raise ticket prices" issue - which is a major complication of itself. If you use good current 3D hardware to display a well-made 3D picture which was shot for 3D and where the medium was used intelligently...it will still degrade the image quality over 2D, people will still get simulator sickness, and a fairly large slice of your audience will even still see it in 2D.

The first problem, degradation, can be minimized through special screens and top-end equipment, but you can't really eliminate it since there it provides a much more complex problem compared to doing the same thing in 2D with the same grade of equipment - or worse (and more realistically), the same budget. This is orders of magnitude worse if you want your 3D installation to be a theater setting since you have to serve many people sitting at many distances and viewing angles, each of whom is using different eyes and different brains to process the input. Honestly, with any existing technology, the only thing you can do in a 3D theater is try to minimize how bad it is and minimize how much it costs you to set up. There is no good solution here. Polarized light projection is really the best way...but it's quite vulnerable to off-axis viewing. Alternating frame projection is better in that sense - off-axis problems are comparatively minor - but the headsets are quite expensive (polarized glasses can be effectively disposable) and many viewers will perceive constant flickering which is annoying at best but more likely a quick trigger for simulator sickness (above the already inherent risk with 3D from conflicting visual cues).

The second and third problems are more or less related. The human visual system relies on a large set of visual cues to create a 3D model of your environment, and stereoscopy is only one factor. Admittedly, it's a fairly major factor, and a large step on the way to creating a fully accomodative display. But for a large portion of the population, stereoscopy is completely null - it does nothing. The brain doesn't weight this factor sufficiently, or the subroutine that parses it is missing, or whatever. Ask a neurologist. The point is, the goggles, sometimes they do nothing. Other times, often, it works...but only to a degree. The brain has a bit of a tolerance for this, but eventually it generates what is known as simulator sickness. The brain catches on to the fact that not all of the visual cues are saying the same things...at which point evolution does its job and tells you to quit doing whatever you're doing while possibly trying to pump your stomach. Somehow, most people don't find headaches and nausea very entertaining. This can be fixed - there is ongoing research attempting to address simulator sickness and improve immersion through developing head-mounted displays which satisfy a broader set of visual cues - but no current 3D technology avoids these issues.

So 3D? It's doing well in the theaters because it's new and unusual, and people like to see new and unusual things. There's even a bit of a niche for 3D-enabled display devices. Some people are less vulnerable to the above issues, and things like viewing angles can be minimized almost into insignificance for a single-user scenario. It has a place, even with current levels of technology. But the technology just isn't here yet, and calling it a joke based on what we've got now is a wee bit like complaining that automobiles are too slow to be useful based on a model from the late 1800s. For now, the Nintendo 3DS is probably doing the smartest thing possible with their selectable 3D depth slider which goes all the way down to 2D - it will drive sales for the novelty, but it's also completely optional.

The "sweet spot" problem and the "edge" problem (5, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478662)

Stereoscopic 3D has two very serious problems that have never been solved. The first is the "sweet spot" problem. Imagine a person standing so that they are lined up exactly with a flagpole. In real life, if you move to one side or the other, the relationship changes and you can now see the flagpole... and you no longer see the person exactly in full-face, but slightly in profile. In a stereoscope 3D presentation, the relationship between the screen elements cannot change. You will see the person exactly lined up with the flagpole no matter where you sit. This sounds trivial, but if you work out the consequences, it means that if a person is standing on a square-tiled floor, the tiles must become skewed into rhombuses if you move to the side. And the depth relationships change, too. The picture becomes squashed or flattened if you sit too close to the screen, elongated with exaggerated depth if you set too far away.

This means that a 3D picture only looks right when viewed from one, specific seating location, the sweet spot. And, worse yet, it only looks right if the cinematographer eschews the use of wide-angle or long lenses, but films the entire movie only with lenses of the single correct focal length, which means throwing away a century of film grammar.

The valid appeal of 3D is to add the realism of depth. But unless you are sitting exactly in the sweet spot and the cinematographer has used only one focal length for the whole film, you do not get realistic depth, you get warped geometrical distortion--and worse yet distortion that changes from one shot to the next.

Have you ever watched a movie from the extreme left seat in the front row? Unpleasant, isn't it? Well, 3D has the same problem, but greatly amplified.

You may not notice it consciously, but your brain has to work overtime to prevent you from noticing it, and it is fatiguing.

The second problem involves any object whose 3D placement is in front of the screen but is near the edges. It is a little hard to explain, but remember that without glasses the object shows up double, as a pair. If it is well in front of the screen, it is a widely separated pair. The glasses make sure your right eye sees only the left image of the pair and vice versa, but the problem is that as the object moves toward the left edge of the screen, one image moves offscreen and disappears before the other does. So, as these objects approach the edge, you see them only with one eye. This actually happens in real life for objects behind a rectangular opening, as in a proscenium theatre stage, so you are used to it and it seems natural. But in real life it never happens for objects that are in front of a rectangular opening, and it is weird, unnatural, and fatiguing. The only way to solve it is to have a screen so huge you don't really see or notice the edges. This probably explains why IMAX 3D is relatively successful--it takes a giant screen to avoid the edge effect.

Together, these two problems mean that 3D cannot just make a scene look realistic and more natural--not unless you project it on a giant IMAX screen and sit exactly at the sweet spot. Under any other conditions, it looks goofy, unnatural, and distracting.

There's no way to fix it. Four people sitting in a four difference seats in a live theatre have eight eyes and views the scene from 8 slightly different points of view. Showing the person in the left seat of the fifth row the pair of images that would be seen by a person sitting in the center seat of the twentieth row isn't going to work. If there are four people sitting in your living room in four different chairs, they need to have four different pairs of image shown to them, a different one for each seating position.
 

SCTV got there first (1)

drfireman (101623) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478674)

How is it possible that no one has yet posted this link? [youtube.com]

thrusting? Zooming in & out? (1)

deseipel (1385271) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478676)

they must work in the adult industry.

mjgraves (1)

mjgraves (845151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478686)

3D exists in its present incarnation for one primary reason; it will drive the theater chains to move to digital projection, a process that has been stalled. 3D movies require digital projection. When Digital projection is more widespread then the studios and distributors can move to digital delivery and save the cost and headache of traditional release prints and shipping. Once the theaters have been converted to digital the 3D push will fade out like the fad that it is.

sure they'll fall for it... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478698)

...after all, they fell for blu-ray.

Honestly? Fuck off with 3D TV (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33478740)

This is so stupid it's not even a joke. Fuck 3D movies, and double fuck (in 2D) 3D TV.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...